RAVE, RAVE against the lying of the Right!

Monthly Archives: June 2015

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the former climate scientist who shared the 2007 Nobel Prize for Peace, has issued his most vehement denials to date of claims that he wrote the blue-rinse porno Return to Almora.

In spite of the science swami’s name emblazoned across its cover, the bizarre text bears little sign of being written by the serious thinker who was entrusted with leading the United Nations’ IPCC for thirteen years.

Almora shot to notoriety in 2011 when Christopher Hitchens, the titan of Anglo-American letters, used his dying breath to ridicule the book. Hitchens’ last words were said to be: “[The Pseudopachauri’s] palaver—for I’m unable to call it prose—manages to be puerile and senile at the same time. Nurse, how is it possible?”

The novel is too execrable to be quoted here. Morbidly curious readers will have no trouble finding excerpts online, and there is nothing we can do to stop them, but Climate Nuremberg will not condone the hoax by linking to it.

Vociferous denial

Appearing on India’s NDTV yesterday, Dr Pachauri reiterated that he bears “absolutely no responsibility” for the geriatric bodice-ripper, which he called “the work of independent authors—they’re to blame”.

Framed: A visibly-upset Rajendra Pachauri (pictured) poses with a copy of the libelous counterfeit that has been called “as heinous as The Protocols.”

Any connection he has with the book begins and ends with the royalty checks he receives from its disappointing sales, he stressed.

That hasn’t stopped opponents of science trotting out the stilted, incompetent smut at every opportunity in their desperation to discredit Pachauri, who probably embodies science more than anyone else in the entire climate movement.

A who’s who of England’s apex caste had gathered along with dignitaries, David Cameron and other plebeian tribunes on the banks of the Thames at Runnymede near Old Windsor. As befits a site dubbed the Death-place of Western Autocracy, the mood was funereal, sometimes openly tearful.

It was here on June 15, 1215 that King John signed away the right of English monarchs to do whatever they deem necessary to save the populace from itself.

“That was a jape,” continued the Prince of Wales, “but like all the best humor, it speaks to a greater, more general truth. To wit, that the instinct to defer to one’s betters reaches its evolutionary ideal in Chinapersons of all kinds, from Siam to Ulan Bator.”

His Royal Highness went on to compare his own subjects, unfavorably, to their celestial cousins.

“One increasingly hears expressed on the Clapham omnibus what might be called the [Simon] Schamaesque view that by late 1214, the baronial class and certain disgruntled clerics had entered an alliance born more of pragmatism than of ideological bla bla bla.

“But what exponents of this [view] tend to forget is,” continued Prince Charles, “nobody cares what they think.

“If I wanted to hear a virus, I’d sneeze,” joked the non-practicing architect and environmentalist (who recently admitted to “inheriting certain misanthropic malthusiasms” from his father Philip, a leading figure in the so-called New Wave of British eugenics).

“I’m not even going to pretend we can tell you the reason, or reasons, for the plateau.

“But what I can say in a very confident voice is this: no matter why it’s happening, it’s only temporary.

“That’s what readers care about,” he tells readers.

Let’s be clear. In 2014 we communicated more science more rapidly than ever before—an achievement as unsustainable as it was unprecedented. And I was proud to be a part of it.

“But we never said we’d keep blogging science at those levels,” says Keyes, “month after month, twelve months a year. That’s just a straw man [erected by enemies of climate action].”

Still, he reminds me, we’re not about to go anywhere.

“Climate Nuremberg has become a permanent feature of human life. For better or worse, the Middle Ages are over. We’ve literally ‘shifted’ the composition of the Earth’s blogosphere, probably forever,” he says, alluding to the so-called Anthropocene doctrine believed by the vast majority of the world’s scientists.

But this doesn’t mean anything has changed, emphasizes Keyes, whose management philosophy, ‘Business As Usual,’ is protected by copyright.

“Posting frequency has simply been ’masked,’” he explains, “by a lack of posting.”

Some researchers at the acclaimed web log, or “‘blog,” suggest the slowdown may have had something to do with summer, which is an academic holiday in Australia. (They’re certain, however, that such short-term variability is a cyclic phenomenon which makes no difference to the overall trend.)

___________________________

*Due to limited funding, Darrell Harb and Brad Keyes are the same guy.

Share this:

Like this:

Brad Keyes and Marcus Toynboyalé

Former climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri yesterday provided the first public clues as to why he stepped down as the moral voice of the global warming movement in February. His sudden resignation blindsided the pro-climate world, which has been waiting for an explanation ever since. Until now, even the most religious reader of the UK Guardian, Skeptical Science and Live From Golgafrincham—a demographic that prides itself on its up-to-date command of all issues climate—could only speculate.

Pachauri began by describing his abrupt exit as “an intensely personal decision,” adding somewhat cryptically that he’d retired “to spend more time with [his] attorneys.”

Held yesterday, the press conference was intended to calm months of uninformed conjecture—and growing concern—on the part of the evidence-based community, now leaderless. And, perhaps because he was flanked at the podium by both his wife and his girlfriend, Pachauri (who has long been admired in the West for his support for the plight of Indian women) quickly earned the twittersphere’s seal of approval. Feminist tweeters were first off the mark, noting the eco-guru’s relaxed, unthreatened demeanour in the presence of the two strong women.

The Philogynist Wore a Fedora: While Pachauri himself is not a woman, he’s always had women’s backs—and the support is mutual. Unlike other male feminists, he assured the 2010 Women’s Forum in Asia, he doesn’t do this to get laid. If that were his game, he womsplained, there are about 100 other cons that would return a higher quantity and quality of quim for far less ass-pain. “And that’s just off the top of my head.”

He’d had us at hello, but the reverent hush of the Arrhenian Auditorium now became pin-drop silence.

“Real scientists don’t hide things,” said Mann at last, demonstrating in just five words why he’s now the hottest ticket in the rarefied, and lucrative, world of after-dinner climate-war rhetoric.

It was an Enlightenment cri de coeur that not only left a lump in every throat, but might have been the official theme of the day’s proceedings. We had come here from all walks of academia, every imaginable postdoctoral discipline and at least three ethnicities, but would leave inflamed by a single truth: that an existential struggle is playing out in real time, a civil war between science and unreason, glasnost and obscurantism, epistemology and agnotology, expediency and truth.

Dr Mann, who lists his area of expertise as science, was the guest of honor at today’s no-expenses-spared opening of the Wei-Hock Soon Studies Institute. The University of Sydney hopes the $20m centre will become a global hub for the investigation of the politics, ethics, philosophy, finances and activities of the eponymous climate contrarian.

Mr Soon—better known by the nom de guerre ‘Willie’—is defined by Wikipedia as “an American solar physics ‘expert’ who vociferously and often vocally disagrees with what mainstream climate science says about the science of our climate, has never been shy about his personal partisan politics, yet seems to be rather less forthcoming when it comes to the question of who pays him, how much they pay him, and what conclusions they pay him to reach.”

Read the full article by becoming a CN Inner Circle member. No need to give your credit card details—simply pass a battery of ideological litmus tests.